JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[DirectorDave]

Hi Gut,

Yeah I accept that...I like to think I kept an open mind while watching it however and my post was critical of the documentary's conclusion.

Perhaps for some at least with JTR reading one suspect book is more advantageous than reading 100?

[Abby Normal]

An interesting coincidence happened about nine months after the JonBenet murder. A few blocks away a mother was awakened in the night by her young daughters screams, as she passed down the hall a man rushed passed her dressed in black, and out the front door.
The girl had been sexually assaulted in her room while she lay in bed.

The man was never caught, and the Boulder Police dismissed this incident as unrelated to the Ramsey murder.

Yup. And apparently the same thing happened to another young girl prior to this case nearby. Not only that but apparently there had been a lot of break ins lately in the neighborhood.

Seems like there might have been a fox getting into the hen house.

[Abby Normal]

I just had to find this bit on the show.
This Dr. Phil Show is just Phil McGraw interviewing Burke on a set with no audience. As the subject matter of the interview changes we see inserts of statements by officials likely taken from other documentary shows.

One official, an FBI Profiler, Candice DeLong, is making a statement about the contents of the autopsy and the skin found beneath the fingernails.

"One of the most important findings in the autopsy was the DNA found underneath her fingernails. When murder victims are being attacked they generally claw at their offender, and that's what JonBenet did."

[Narrator: (The autopsy report)...shows that tiny amounts of DNA were found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underwear. And, that DNA did not match John, Patsy, or anyone in the Ramsey family. The police at the time were not convinced that the DNA found at the scene belonged to the killer.]

Other officials stated that the DNA in her underwear was male, and likely from saliva.

Months after the murder (Oct. 1997) the waist band of her leggings was tested by the 'touch-DNA' method, by an independent facility, they found this DNA also did not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family, but it did match the previous DNA samples found in this case.

No distinction was made between the three sources of DNA by any of the officials commenting on the subject, only that the DNA evidence (collectively) indicated the presence of an unknown male.

Thanks wick.
Still don't buy it. Never heard any official source say DNA under fingernails matched the others.

When I do, then yes that's a big game changer.

[Abby Normal]

Yup. And apparently the same thing happened to another young girl prior to this case nearby. Not only that but apparently there had been a lot of break ins lately in the neighborhood.

Seems like there might have been a fox getting into the hen house.

If not, and it was someone in the family, then a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Abby Normal]

I couldn't hear what they claimed to hear, too much background noise, even when enhanced.
There was a lot of guesses being offered by all taking part. No-one can draw a definite conclusion, though some might assert otherwise.

Bingo. That part reminded me when we were kids and used to slow down and spin backwards the rock and roll records on the turntable and swore we heard John say that Paul was dead or that such and such was the devil. Lol.
It was nonsense.

That being said the 911 operator who took the call said that Patsy's tone and demeaner suddenly changed from frantic to cold and calm after she thought she hung up and the operator said she heard pasty say something along the
Lines of ok we called the police what next. Immediately the ramseys started calling there friends.

The operators said her gut impression was that she thought patsy was faking it.

[Wickerman]

I've just watched the 2-part documentary. I don't have a great interest in true crime and this crime in particular I would avoid as no doubt it comes with pictures of young girls parading in makeup in front of adults that quite frankly makes me want to retch.

Totally agree with your view on the treatment of these little girls, bordering on child abuse, but anyway....

The two-part documentary appeared to accept the blow to her head came first, so it comes as no surprise they would not mention the abrasions on her throat above the line made by the garrotte. The abrasions described as half-moon in shape, like fingernails, and indicative of her scratching at her throat to release the cord.
This would be impossible if she was brain-dead as a result of the blow to the head.

I think you'll also find that the petechiae around the garrotte line is also consistent with her being alive at the time it was applied.
The autopsy did conclude "death by strangulation", so all points considered, the blow to the head came after death by strangulation. The bleeding in the brain is then merely due to gravity.

I still fail to see the rationale behind falsely creating a ransom note when the body is still in the basement.
After calling the police Patsy phoned a number of family friends who all came flooding in to the house. Not what anyone would do knowing the body was still in the house.

If one of the family had accidentally killed JonBenet, then creating false evidence to implicate an intruder appears to make sense, but that evidence would not include a ransom note.
You would need to remove the body from the house, which they had all the time they needed to do this, then create a false ransom note.

A ransom note AND a dead body are not compatible.

The intruder theory has the kidnapper breaking in to the house while the Ramsey's were out, and he familiarized himself with the house and wrote the ransom note (which must have taken 20-30 minutes) in the hours while he waits for the family to return.
Apparently the Mag-lite torch found on the kitchen table (which some believe caused the head wound) did not belong to the Ramsey's.

[Billiou]

Yup. And apparently the same thing happened to another young girl prior to this case nearby. Not only that but apparently there had been a lot of break ins lately in the neighborhood.

Seems like there might have been a fox getting into the hen house.

Evidence of a break-in?

[DirectorDave]

Hi Jon,

I'm still too ignorant of the complexities case to comment on all your points so please forgive me only picking up a couple of them.

I still fail to see the rationale behind falsely creating a ransom note when the body is still in the basement.

As do I. But then again it's easy to be rational me sitting here scoffing tea and biscuits if I could ever envisage trying to cover up a murder, I'd imagine less so.

After calling the police Patsy phoned a number of family friends who all came flooding in to the house. Not what anyone would do knowing the body was still in the house.

I offer this as only something I heard on the documentary that Clemente said something along the lines of "Every(?) case of a staged murder scene I have been involved with the perpetrators have invited people to witness finding the body."

[Wickerman]

I offer this as only something I heard on the documentary that Clemente said something along the lines of "Every(?) case of a staged murder scene I have been involved with the perpetrators have invited people to witness finding the body."

Hi Dave.

A staged murder yes, but this was supposed to be a staged kidnapping. And, in this case no-one was searching the house, that had been done already, twice if I recall correctly.
It was Det. Arndt who suggested John go and look again - to keep him busy, otherwise we have no reason to believe any further searches were intended.

[Wickerman]

howver, I think he may have gotten the stun gun idea wrong. I applaud him for finding the marks and I thought too that there may have been a stun gun involved.Now I lean towrd not. First of all a stun gun is loud-it crackles and pops and makes a loud noise when applied. Also, a persons natural reaction is to scream when it is applied.

In an earlier post I made a similar observation, that a stun-gun crackles, its noisy, but that is assuming it was used to stun her in her bedroom. Maybe it wasn't.

However, now I have seen the floor plan of the upper floors, the bedrooms where everyone slept.
The Ramsey's were up in the attic on the top floor.
JonBenet's room was at one end of the house on the floor below, the attic room may not have been directly over her's.
Between JonBenet's room was another room, and a passage/hallway which zigzagged towards the other side of the house where Burke's room was.

Looking at this floor plan there was too much space between JonBenet's room and Burke's, he may not have heard anything. Likewise with the parents up in the attic, too far away from the noise.
So I guess the suggestion a stun-gun was too noisy may not have been the case in this instance.

[DirectorDave]

Jon,

Running with "the family did it" it's a still a staged murder scene, so taking Clemente's claim at face value it still applies.

As for searching the house, if it had been done twice it was clearly not done to any great extent because they didn't find the body.

Without the ransom note the assumption is "our child is missing" with it "our child has been taken away" I can do nothing but assume without the note it would not have taken 3 searches to find the body, indeed without that note would the police even been phoned before finding the body?

[Abby Normal]

Totally agree with your view on the treatment of these little girls, bordering on child abuse, but anyway....

The two-part documentary appeared to accept the blow to her head came first, so it comes as no surprise they would not mention the abrasions on her throat above the line made by the garrotte. The abrasions described as half-moon in shape, like fingernails, and indicative of her scratching at her throat to release the cord.
This would be impossible if she was brain-dead as a result of the blow to the head.

I think you'll also find that the petechiae around the garrotte line is also consistent with her being alive at the time it was applied.
The autopsy did conclude "death by strangulation", so all points considered, the blow to the head came after death by strangulation. The bleeding in the brain is then merely due to gravity.

I still fail to see the rationale behind falsely creating a ransom note when the body is still in the basement.
After calling the police Patsy phoned a number of family friends who all came flooding in to the house. Not what anyone would do knowing the body was still in the house.

A ransom note AND a dead body are not compatible.

The intruder theory has the kidnapper breaking in to the house while the Ramsey's were out, and he familiarized himself with the house and wrote the ransom note (which must have taken 20-30 minutes) in the hours while he waits for the family to return.
Apparently the Mag-lite torch found on the kitchen table (which some believe caused the head wound) did not belong to the Ramsey's.

hi wick

The two-part documentary appeared to accept the blow to her head came first, so it comes as no surprise they would not mention the abrasions on her throat above the line made by the garrotte. The abrasions described as half-moon in shape, like fingernails, and indicative of her scratching at her throat to release the cord.
This would be impossible if she was brain-dead as a result of the blow to the head.

I think you'll also find that the petechiae around the garrotte line is also consistent with her being alive at the time it was applied.
The autopsy did conclude "death by strangulation", so all points considered, the blow to the head came after death by strangulation. The bleeding in the brain is then merely due to gravity.

I think the head blow came first, but I could see a scenario where the killer used the garrot first to strangle/torture her-lik the way BTK did-tightening and loosening up the garrot repeatedly, then eventually hitting her in the head, andor eventually finishing her off with the garrott. so the head blow in this scenario would come IN BETWEEN the garroting.

After calling the police Patsy phoned a number of family friends who all came flooding in to the house. Not what anyone would do knowing the body was still in the house.

many killers arrange that someone else find the body, especially in cases where its someone in the family who committed the murder. maybe they wanted one of there friends (or police) to find the body.

If one of the family had accidentally killed JonBenet, then creating false evidence to implicate an intruder appears to make sense, but that evidence would not include a ransom note.
You would need to remove the body from the house, which they had all the time they needed to do this, then create a false ransom note.

if someone in the family did it, who knows what they were thinking in their panicked state. but a ransome not obviously would create confusion and shift blame away from them, body in house or not.

The intruder theory has the kidnapper breaking in to the house while the Ramsey's were out, and he familiarized himself with the house and wrote the ransom note (which must have taken 20-30 minutes) in the hours while he waits for the family to return.
Apparently the Mag-lite torch found on the kitchen table (which some believe caused the head wound) did not belong to the Ramsey's.

[/QUOTE]

this is entirely plausible. in fact I have it about 50/50-maybe slightly leaning to someone in the family.

[louisa]

The head blow had to have come first.

It makes no sense for somebody to break the skull after the garrotting.


As for the intruder, for me anyway, the theory is NOT plausible on so many grounds that it would take a long list to explain why.

An intruder would NOT have known what time the Ramseys would return. He would have had no way of knowing exactly how long he had to 'lurk' in the house.

Then....we are supposed to believe he sat down and calmy wrote a rambling long ransom note, discarding the first one or two because they weren't to his liking. (The impressions were left on the pad underneath). Then replacing the top on the pen and putting it back on the holder on the counter.

So much is wrong with the 'intruder' theory.

Yes, the police discounted the intruder theory because they knew, almost right from the start, who the culprits were. They still investigated every possible avenue. They had to.

Just because you or I would not cover up the killing of one of our children does not mean that these two odd people wouldn't. When I say 'odd' it is because their behaviour was so strange, right from the get-go.

What parent would not wish to assist the police in any and every way possible (and that means being interviewed and questioned) in order to find the person who did this to their beloved daughter?

[louisa]

An interesting interview with ex Police Chief Mark Becknor....

http://fox8.com/2015/02/26/ex-police-chief-jonbenet-ramsey-crime-scene-was-mishandled/

[Abby Normal]

The head blow had to have come first.

It makes no sense for somebody to break the skull after the garrotting.


As for the intruder, for me anyway, the theory is NOT plausible on so many grounds that it would take a long list to explain why.

An intruder would NOT have known what time the Ramseys would return. He would have had no way of knowing exactly how long he had to 'lurk' in the house.

Then....we are supposed to believe he sat down and calmy wrote a rambling long ransom note, discarding the first one or two because they weren't to his liking. (The impressions were left on the pad underneath). Then replacing the top on the pen and putting it back on the holder on the counter.

So much is wrong with the 'intruder' theory.

Yes, the police discounted the intruder theory because they knew, almost right from the start, who the culprits were. They still investigated every possible avenue. They had to.

Just because you or I would not cover up the killing of one of our children does not mean that these two odd people wouldn't. When I say 'odd' it is because their behaviour was so strange, right from the get-go.

What parent would not wish to assist the police in any and every way possible (and that means being interviewed and questioned) in order to find the person who did this to their beloved daughter?

Freaks like the Ramsey's.